2d, he thinks that when the European immigration shall have ceased, or sensibly diminished, and the Church is more widely represented by natives of the soil, the progress of Catholicity with his countrymen will be greater; and, 3d, he has made a solemn, almost an awful appeal for young men that was quite uncalled for. The first we have explained, so as to place us and his Grace very nearly in the same opinion, and the second we have shown is a misconception of our real position and sentiments. But, supposing them all well founded, they allege nothing of a very serious character against us. Not one of them is a sin against faith, against morals, or against discipline. The most that can be said of them is, that they betray a slight error of judgment, and a rather sanguine temperament. Now, considering that we have conducted our Review as a Catholic periodical for twelve years, and have written for it two hundred and forty or more essays, some of them on the most difficult and delicate matters in the whole range of philosophy and Catholic theology, and considering also our extremely limited knowledge of Catholic theology, and of Catholic persons and things in the outset, the ill health, the depression of spirits, and the haste in which we have often been obliged to write, to say nothing of the distracting cares of a numerous family to provide for, educate, and settle in the world, we think we may well congratulate ourselves that his Grace has found no graver faults to allege against us; and we cannot but believe, that had he read our Review with a severer disposition, he would not have let us off so easily. Certainly we find far more in ourselves to blame and regret; and that, too, without recognizing the justice of any of the objections that have been raised against us, in relation to the question of nativism and foreignism which we have felt it necessary on several occasions to discuss.

But it is no little consolation to us to know, that whatever our faults, errors, or short-comings, his Grace does not regard them as any serious drawback on the merits. or utility of our Review; for if he did, he would not have spoken so warmly in its praise, so heartily commended it to the Catholic public, or expressed so much regret at the prejudices that, in certain quarters, have

been so unjustly excited against it. We shall be pardoned for citing his remarks in our favor:

"We regret exceedingly that many persons, at least so we have been told, are dissatisfied with some of the views put forward by Dr. Brownson. And we would regret it the more, if in reality he had given occasion for this dissatisfaction, by viewing the whole question from something like what might be called an original stand-point. At all events, there is this to be said, that if we have Catholic writers at all, their heads and their hands, their thoughts and their pens, must be guided not by another, but by themselves. in their individual capacity, and under their individual responsibility, It may be added farther, that the liberty of the press on all subjects is not to be questioned in a country like this. At the same time, there is a censorship in this as well as in other nations. The difference is, that in other countries the censorship of the press, through the medium of government agents, is exercised, in general, previously to, or simultaneously with the publication of an articlehere it comes after. There, it is the judgment of an individual who acts under state authority-here, it is the censure of many individuals acting each one under the dictation of his own private judgment. Catholic editors, therefore, need not be surprised if, when they trespass too largely on the feelings of their subscribers, the circulation of their periodicals should be occasionally abridged.

"We should be exceedingly sorry if any thing of this kind should occur in the case of Brownson's Review. It is known to himself, at least, that several paragraphs in his writings have not been such as to merit our poor approbation. But we are told by astronomers that there are spots on the sun. And if he has written and published some things that might be offensive, he has written many others that are destined to perish never. When he and all of us shall have been consigned to the dust, writers amongst those who are to succeed us will go forth among the pages of his Catholic Review, prospecting, as they say in California, for the best 'diggings.' Nor will they be disappointed, if they have tact and talent for profound philosophical, literary and religious mining.' But they will not give him credit.

66

But even should all other portions of his works pass away, there is one declaration of his that the writer quotes from memory, which is destined to be quoted throughout Christendom, just as long as the declaration of Fenelon, on a certain occasion, when he condemned some of his own writings, because they were disapproved by the head of the Catholic Church. The circumstances and the persons differ from each other in several respects. Fenelon was an Archbishop; Brownson is a layman. Fenelon condemned what he had written, nothing that Brownson has written has been condemned; but the declaration to which we have referred, and which

is imperishable, was the honorable and gratuitous proclamation from Brownson's own pen, when he embraced the Catholic faithwhen he had already acquired a philosophical and literary reputation sufficient to make a proud man vain-he did not hesitate to give an example of humility that will be an edification to the Catholics of future ages as well as of the present, in stating that he 'had brought nothing into the Catholic Church except his sins.' Now there is no great eloquence in this language. It amounts to a mere truism, for whether it be the infant of three days old or the adult convert to the faith, it is all the same. Brownson brought much to the Catholic faith, but his humility would permit only the foregoing declaration to be put on record.

"We do not think, therefore, that the Catholics of New York and of the United States can afford to see Brownson's Review languishing or dying out for want of support. Suppose there are passages in it which some of us may not have approved of, what of that? There is not even among these a single passage, from the perusal of which a judicious reader may not have gleaned knowledge and information. It has been useful, and we think it destined to become more and more useful, as its learned editor shall be more and more cheered in his labors by the hearty support of Catholic patronage.”—pp. 26-29.

We copy the pamphlet edition before us, re-printed, with corrections, from The Metropolitan. As it appeared in The Metropolitan, and has been copied into several journals, it gave us some pain, for we feared a few of its expressions might be misapprehended, but as it appears in the pamphlet, with the author's corrections, it gives us none, except the pain of being thought by our Archbishop, who has known us so long and so intimately, capable of allowing our national feelings to drive us into a movement in any degree hostile to Catholics not of American birth. In the Metropolitan edition, the Archbishop is made to say, that it is known to ourselves at least, that our Review has contained "many many articles that have not met his approbation; in the pamphlet this is corrected for "many articles," "several paragraphs " is substituted. The former would not be accurate; the latter is true in a general sense, although we cannot lay our finger on a single paragraph, with the exception of the one copied from our Review for last October, and say, this particular paragraph has been disapproved by the Archbishop of New York. We know, in a general way, that our Review has contained paragraphs which

have not met his approbation, especially on the subject of education; but we do not know what are the particular paragraphs, doctrines, propositions, or opinions, to which he objects.

We say this lest some persons should draw from his Grace's remarks, what we are sure he never intended, the conclusion, so unfavorable to us, that his Grace has privately censured us for some articles or paragraphs in our Review. Such has never in a single instance been the fact. Nothing he has ever said or written to us has amounted to a censure. He has, as taking a deep interest in the prosperity of religion and in our own personal welfare, for which we can never be sufficiently thankful, from time to time, in conversation and by letter, offered us his paternal advice, and made such suggestions and observations to us as occurred to his zeal, his experience, his wisdom, and personal friendship. Differences of opinion there have from time to time existed between us, but none that we have not found him ready to tolerate or overlook. We are bound to say that we have always found him exceedingly delicate with regard to the liberty of the press, and disposed to maintain for Catholic Journalists all the freedom they can have the hardihood to ask. We have always found him in relation to those questions in regard to which there might be differences of opinion between us, disposed to concede us full liberty to follow our own judgment; and it is but simple justice to his Grace to say that as far as we have had any relations with him, he has freely, frankly, spontaneously, given us all the liberty as an editor and writer that we can, without forgetting our Catholicity, pretend to, and we are aware of no instance in which he has shown the slightest disposition to remind us of his Episcopal authority.

In the pamphlet before us, he says distinctly, "If we are to have Catholic writers at all, their heads and their hands, their thoughts and their pens must be guided, not by another, but by themselves, in their individual capacity, and under their individual responsibility." In a letter addressed to us, the 29th of last August, and from which we are at liberty to make some extracts, he says, speaking of our Review, "Since its publication in this city, it has been my wish that your pen should be unguided by any

other head or hand than your own,-under, of course, a deep sense, which I know you entertain, of the responsibility devolved on a Catholic layman who conducts so important a periodical as yours." Nothing can be more liberal or more just than the doctrine his Grace here asserts, that liberty and responsibility go together, that where one is responsible he must be free, and where free he must be responsible.

We write freely, from our own mind, not from any man's dictation; but we are responsible for the use we make of our freedom. Whether we properly use, or whether we abuse our freedom, it is not for us, but for authority alone, to judge, and to its judgment, formally pronounced, we owe, and we trust shall always yield, unreserved submission. We are free within our legitimate sphere as a Catholic Journalist, and authority cannot censure us, though the father may counsel us, unless we step beyond that sphere, and offend against faith, morals, or discipline. But whether we do or do not step beyond that sphere and so offend, belongs not to us but to authority to determine. If the Bishop or Archbishop who judges in the first instance does us wrong, our remedy is not in disobedience, resistance, or public discussion, but in appeal to Rome, to the highest tribunal of the Church. The law that governs journalists is, we take it, the same law that governs Catholics in all lawful secular pursuits. His Grace has always been even punctilious, in our case, to acknowledge our full Catholic freedom, and he has always treated us in this respect with the greatest possible delicacy. Thus in the letter just cited, alluding to an address by the editor, given at Fordham, on occasion of the commencement of St. John's College last July, he says, "You are aware that I did not agree with you in some of the statements contained in your address, but that right of difference of opinion is what is mutually acknowledged wherever essential principles of faith and morals are not immediately involved." The differences there have been between his Grace and ourselves, be they more or be they less, we have always regarded, and have understood him to regard, as coming within the sphere of free opinions, where he allowed us the same right to differ from him, that he claimed for himself to differ from us; and